Responsible driving training

One of the directives from the DVSA in Role 6 of the Driving Standard is to “enable safe and responsible driving”.  They then go on to explain how driving instructors are expected to make that happen.

There is a better chance of a long-standing change in understanding and behaviour if the instructor:

Helps the learner to identify any obstacles to understanding change

Supports the learner to identify strategies for overcoming those obstacles for themselves

It goes further regarding the teaching methodology:

While it is reasonable to encourage learners to practise particular methods for performing a given task, because there are clearly explainable benefits to that method, the outcome of the learning process should be that the learner has developed a safe and responsible method which they can apply consistently and reliably; not that they have learnt any one specified method.

What this means is that a professional and responsible driving trainer must be prepared to assist a pupil in learning that creates long-term, consistent driving behaviours as opposed to a set of driving behaviours that fall into the “driving test only” category.  What many driving instructors do not appreciate, and frankly do not want to be told, is that driving instruction that fails to engage in a pupils inner thoughts has very little impact on their long term driving behaviours.

A practical example I would give of this would be the time honoured question that is banded around in our industry:

“So in terms of learning styles Johnny, how do YOU like to learn?”

This makes the driving instructor think that they are adapting their training to suit the pupils needs.  However, that question, as often as it undoubtedly is used, falls very short of any practical value.  Often a pupil will answer that question with:

“Oh I just like to try things with trial and error really”.

Which is about as meaningless an answer as the meaningless question deserves to receive to be quite blunt.

Young adults do not necessarily have any experience of learning a practical skill.  Their learning experiences to date may very well just consist of academia whereby facts, figures, explanations, reasoning and analysis centre around subject matter that has no practical use at all.  Asking a new pupil what experience they have of any practical skills is a much better question.  Practical skills involve co-ordination, concentration, endurance, persistence, focus, attention to detail, technique, timing, assessment based on practical ability.  Pupils who have had experience of this kind of learning will relate to the notion of how emotions affect behaviours such as confidence on ability for example, and the relationship between cognitive and practical skills. 

A pupil who has no experience of the above, can potentially look upon learning to drive in the same reference as they study to recall facts, equations and theoretical formulae. But safe driving is not an intelligence activity; it requires thought for sure, it requires reflection, self-evaluation, assessment, planning skills but a high IQ does not a safe driver make.

“Trial and error” can have a hidden message that disconnects driving behaviours from consequences and does so with no responsibility.  It also very conveniently negates the need to bother oneself with any evaluation as what goes wrong is really only to be expected in a learning environment of “trial and error”.  The making of mistakes is indeed an opportunity for learning, but in order to learn, the pupil would need to reflect on the outcome, the consequence – without any such thinking, there is very little learning going on.

This blend of cognitive and physical skills needs time and practise to develop, the learning is not the same type of learning that is needed to remember a fact or verse or quotation or equation.  Failing to accurately recall a fact drops exam grades, failing to develop good driving skills potentially kills people. 

In order to stand any chance of developing “responsible” newly qualified drivers, driving instructors do need to raise their game regarding their own levels of responsibility.  Undoubtedly, adopting learning techniques that create “quick gain” but superficial results makes life easier for the driving instructor as well as the pupil, but the methodology falls far short of being “responsible”.   Ignoring obstacles to effective learning is lazy instruction, it is dumbing down of learning, and it is entirely avoidable if our profession would just stop excusing it all the time.  It is inexcusable as it is affecting driving standards.  We really do need to put the “thinking” back into learning to drive.

Tom Ingram is the owner of BIG TOM Driving School and provides driving training for trainee driving instructors (0775 607 1464)  http://drivinginstructortraining.bigtom.org.uk/ 

A plea to driving instructor associations

Making the learning process for a pupil ‘meaningful’ is the hallmark of a professional driving instructor.  This phrase of ‘meaningful learning’ keeps coming into my radar from the DVSA of late.  To demonstrate what this actually means, I will describe what is happening with a pupil that is currently with me.

She has done 13 hours with a different driving instructor but has lost her way with him because he was doing mock tests with her but was talking of her driving test being in “August or September”.  That might be acceptable to some, but for this lass, 3 months delay was simply not acceptable.  I don’t know the instructor she was referring to, I have no idea at all about the accuracy of the situation and can only go with the account of the pupil. 

What I observed when this pupil showed me her driving was the product of what I refer to as ineffective instruction.  Mirror checks were inconsistent and lacked any logical methodology.  Blindspots checks sometimes happened, but more often were non-existent.  There was no evidence of the necessary sowing of seeds of good driving habits.  The pupil was constantly needing confirmation of where to go, pointing to a junction asking “What….. this one here?”.  She had no concept about the relationship between speed and gears; a telltale sign of this fact is when a pupil forces the gear lever into 2^nd when approaching at about 40mph for a roundabout on a faster moving road.  When she made mistakes like driving up the kerb on the left, speeding, stalling, or emerging when she shouldn’t, her comments of frustration were based around how these always happened and why there was always a reason for it happening – in other words, there was a disconnect between the driving behaviour and her; she did not ‘own’ her actions.

This pupil has now been exposed to 8 hours of driving training with me.  She has been given the opportunity to consider aspects of driving that tap into the upper 2 tiers of the GDE matrix – with mixed engagement if I’m being quite honest about it.  I think it fair to say that every comment or question that comes out of her mouth is “driving test” related.  Her thoughts are utterly consumed with the driving test.   She openly says to me that the ultimate possibility of obtaining the full driving licence is so great and desirable that she just cannot get it out of her head.

She has not been offered the opportunity previously to consider what “good driving” means to her or where her ability and confidence fit into being a safe and responsible driver.  These thoughts are alien to her.  She has been focussed entirely on “Tell me what you want me to do so I can pass the test”.  And this is the really important bit in this blog – no-one should be placing any ‘blame’ on pupils who have this narrow view about what learning to drive entails.  Pupils come into this learning process with a variety of different experiences of what learning means to them.  My 15 year old son explained to me the other day, quite out of the blue, and in his own terminology, how he felt the English teachers were in effect spoon-feeding the pupils to pass the English exams.  This is of course no surprise to me as my other son was telling me in primary school how a teacher hovered over him while taking an exam, and said “I think you might want to think about that again” whilst pointing to a particular answer.  Our education system has become over the decades so obsessed with exam grades that the meaningfulness of “learning” has got lost in the process.  You have to feel for the teachers that see this happening in slow motion and constantly question if this is what they came into the industry for.

Why is this important to recognise? 

This over emphasis on grades is placing an incredible strain on our teenagers.  It affects confidence, self-worth and it ignores the fact that people do need to feel like they are being fulfilled while in the process of their education years.  Coming out of the process feeling a failure, feeling like you have let yourself and your family down is not good….. this is the stuff of no eye contact, low activity levels, little ability to string sentences together to express how you feel.  And this non-engagement of a meaningful learning environment also does little for helping them to develop key life skills about self-development in social, business, family relationships.  It is the ability to nurture relationships that makes for happiness rather than achieving a Grade C over a Grade D. 

But how this affects us as driving instructors is also not insignificant.  We have customers who have become used to being spoon-fed, they have become used to a learning environment centred around a lack of responsibility for the effectiveness of the process – they have become used to the setting of expectations of “just scraping through”.  But worst of all, there is little connection between ‘cause and effect’, after all if you don’t own a process, you have little control over the outcome.  The result is that the non-academic of us (in which I firmly place myself) are left to languish in feelings of low self-worth where they can only stare in awe at the “self-assured”. 

When a driving instructor falls into the trap of spoon-feeding their pupils, all they do is further exacerbate this problem.  We have literally thousands of newly qualified drivers with very little confidence in their driving ability who have been coached to pass driving tests.  So bad is the situation now that the ONLY way in which they can afford to get insured is for them to have black box telematics fitted, so that the continued “compliance” is forced upon them.  Their driving behaviours are being controlled (with varying success) by enforced supervision from insurance companies rather than tapping into their inner most thoughts, feelings and beliefs.  Oh dear, what a sad state of affairs we are in.

What we need at the very least is for professionals in the industry who are prepared to embrace and comply with the DVSA driving standards to start creating a pressure within the driving training industry on the professionals who are choosing to ignore the DVSA.  This is where I personally would like to the see driving associations step up to the plate.  These associations apparently have the best interests of their members in mind, and if that is the case, then they should be leading the way in modelling good practice.  I see very little of this in my interactions with them.  I hear a lot of excuses and historical context given, but I don’t see or hear any pressure being exerted.  These organisations owe it to their members to become more accepting of the explicit guidance given by the DVSA and be actively seen to not defend members who continue to provide “Mum and Dad” style driving instruction.  Compliance led driving training does little to contribute towards long term road safety, it does not serve customers well, it ignores the guidance of our driving authority the DVSA and yet it is ignored like the plague.  My wish would be that it is openly confronted, exposed, and this unprofessional, lazy form of training is openly shown to be what it is….. ineffective.

http://drivinginstructortraining.bigtom.org.uk/ 

Strategy for effective learning

Whether this is a good thing or not, the fact is that the method by which driving instructors facilitate learning differs greatly.  At its worse the instructor will bark out commands for the pupil to obey, and they will feedback their criticisms regarding driving faults either instantly….. repeatedly, or perhaps prefer the approach of banking them up for one almighty great demoraliser that ensures the pupil is under no illusions about who makes who cry in the car.

However, in accordance to our driving standards, they ensure that all driving instructors comply to the explicit structure given.  It is an approach that is built on open communication, flexibility, boundaries that facilitate safety and learning, and last but not least, clarity.

A pupil has every right to know how you go about your business; it involves and affects them.  They should be made aware of this from the moment they contact you.  The kind of detail that they should be told IN ADVANCE about includes:

How you go about setting a “curriculum”

What means you have of adapting the plan to accommodate the specific needs of a pupil.

How you go about providing feedback to pupils.  The method and the timing.

The methods by which a pupil can give instant feedback regarding the learning experience and formally complain about the experience they have received.

The options you have available to address all 4 levels of the GDE matrix.

The expected behaviour of pupil and instructor within the learning environment and how the structure of the training session can cater for individual needs.

How the phases of “training” and “assessment” can be used effectively in a learning process.

What measures are in place to assist a pupil to improve standards if they require assistance post-course or post-test.

How external influencers can affect pupils’ attitudes to the learning process.

The reason that this is so important within the working relationship of the pupil and instructor is because it is built on transparency, respect and honesty.  This is a crucial element to the relationships that my driving school builds with customers and it is absolutely essential that a customer has the right and ability to immediately cease in-car training that they feel is not effective for them.  Driving instructors within the BIG TOM franchise are trained in formulating effective strategies for learning.

I am happy to assist any PDI on the subject of these blogs - 07894 262 718  http://drivinginstructortraining.bigtom.org.uk/ 

Feeling valued

On a daily basis I speak to people who are considering a new career as a driving instructor.  Often one of the motivators for change is the sense that they just do not find their current life fulfilling.  It is very important that each of us looks after our own internal eco-system, and ensure that we are regularly fed with experiences and interactions with others that leave us feeling valued.  It is a basic human need.  People describe to me how they feel like they are taken for granted, or that their daily contributions are simply expected rather than valued. 

An interesting aspect to consider is how the career of being a driving instructor would address this basic need in you.  I introduce my ebook on this very subject as I think the work/life balance really is not to be ignored.  Having a sense of control so that you are able to enjoy positive experiences in any given day is not a small deal.  Daily life is ever increasing in intensity and pressure. 

I speak to my pupils about the process of learning to drive. I encourage them to imagine this need to juggle balls relating to physical dexterity, multi-tasking, mental skills, applying theory knowledge etc and how the introduction of a new ball does not mean any of the others can be dropped. It is not dissimilar to what each of us does on a daily basis, juggling balls marked work, home, interests, kids etc.  Some people recognise that they need to address the number of balls they are juggling, or neglecting some balls over others, or they are recognising that one or two balls in particular seem overly big or heavy to juggle, and that really needs their attention.

The working day of a driving instructor does have its challenges too.  It would be wonderful if every pupil that we interacted with was plain and simple to help, but that would be giving you a false impression.   Driving instructors have their strengths and weaknesses. The ability to assist and enjoy working relationships with pupils is going to depend on what skills the instructor has available.  Teaching is a creative process, the facilitation of learning comes about by paying attention to the needs of the pupil and adapting to those needs.   Ignoring this fact makes for miserable working environments, it does little to develop effective learning relationships with pupils.  It also affects key factors like the safety in the car, the amount of learning the pupil makes and how effective is the learning. 

What kind of skills am I referring to?   Being able to identify pupils' needs is critical and that comes with effective communication.   Knowledge about barriers to learning would be right up there on my list of key skills.   As would having the ability to deliver a range of learning techniques that develop personalised and deep learning. 

People often talk to me about the positive feeling that driving instructors must get when a pupil passes a driving test.  This is undoubtedly true as it positively enhances peoples lives.  But for me, my sense of reward is in the daily interactions with pupils.  It is incredibly rewarding when you can witness a pupil developing.  They come into the process of learning to drive with a variety of needs, and when you can observe them overcoming barriers to learning, that is truly inspirational.

To speak to me about becoming a driving instructor with BIG TOM simply call on 07894 262 718       http://drivinginstructortraining.bigtom.org.uk/ 

Adding value to ORDIT

On Friday 2/6/17 I attended an event by the DVSA, part of which was to ask for the opinion of the attendees as to how the Official Register of Driving Instructor Training (ORDIT) could be improved.  About 30 attendees started to voluntarily give their opinions, passions were clearly high and the DVSA representatives took turns to right down the points on a flip-chart for their own records.

I have since spent the weekend reflecting on the subject, and this blog details my own opinion of why the ‘status’ of ORDIT is where it is at and more importantly how it can be improved.

Let me start by putting context around the problem that the DVSA are attempting to solve.  Many years ago, the DVSA set up a voluntary register of “approved” trainers who provide training for trainee driving instructors (known as PDI’s “potential driving instructor” in the industry).  It was generally accepted back then that there were some pretty low standards of training occurring.  Very experienced trainers that I listened to on Friday were stating that the scheme has no standing or recognition in the industry or by the public who are trying to choose a provider for their training.

The temptation then is to find ways of raising the awareness of the public about the register and also to raise the perceived value of the members who are on it.  This is a mistake.  One fundamental flaw in the DVSA approach is that they consistently under estimate the power of market forces.  This may be linked to the fact that it is a governmental organisation and culturally they have little need to provide a service aligned to customer needs.  But the problem is that the members listed on the ORDIT register ARE very much aware of market forces; whilst being a member linked with the DVSA may in theory project an aura of positivity, customers rarely place such importance on these things.  Customers have a need, and they want to find a supplier that will satisfy that need.

The industry is therefore customer oriented, and natural market forces apply.  It really does not assist at all when talking about ORDIT to ignore this fact; many extremely successful trainers of PDI’s will NOT be on ORDIT and whilst that might be an annoyance to some, it is a fact that should not be ignored.  Eventually then, the question starts to evolve into what can the DVSA do to attract successful trainers to ORDIT whilst at the same time declining membership to trainers who are not successful.  The DVSA has a need to make ORDIT relevant to customers (PDI’s).

What are the measures of success?  In a normal business interaction, a good measure of success is how well a business meets the needs of the customer.  Satisfied customers makes for happy customers makes for successful businesses, in general terms.  If a PDI wants to qualify, then it is logical to suggest that success will be achieved when that PDI passes the qualification process which are the 3 tests set by the DVSA.  It is very common to hear in the industry about “pass rates” – these will be providers who are very much driven to meet their customers immediate needs of passing the 3 tests.  Once that is completed we have one happy newly qualified driving instructor – value added, job done.

The industry has two big problems with that approach, one is staring it full ahead in the face, the other is hiding in the background desperately trying not to be noticed and in the main, the industry does its utmost to ignore it. 

The first big problem is that less than 30% of PDI’s who come into the training industry are qualifying.  The second big problem is the turnover of approved driving instructors (ADI)…. we can see from DVSA statistics how many new ADI’s are coming into the industry per month and we can also see how the register numbers are reducing each month.  People in the industry generally don’t want to acknowledge either of these problems, but given the fact that less than 30% of PDI’s actually qualify, the industry DEFINITELY doesn’t want to acknowledge the second problem – that would raise serious questions of fitness for purpose.  That would begin to raise the issue of accountability.

So there we have a certain type of problem about retention.  Despite a regular and dependable number of newly qualified driving instructors starting up each month, how many of them are actually surviving in the industry?  What is it about the market conditions that means so many ADI’s are closing down their driving schools?  Ideally, the DVSA would be willing to undertake an “exit interview” when an ADI closes a driving school and attempt to establish the causes.  For sure there will be a natural number of retirements and these should be expected, but the industry really should do more to discover the reasons why driving schools of less than 2 years in the industry close down.   The reason why the DVSA has an obligation to discover these reasons is because they are attempting to develop ORDIT into a meaningful register of training providers; the members within it training PDI’s NOT just to pass tests.

Another problematical aspect of the driving training industry is still centred around the customer needs regarding their desire to pass tests versus the standard of training they receive.  The DVSA have produced driving standards that set the expectations of the quality of training required by driving instructors for learners, but not by trainers for PDI’s.  Historically, this issue has been fuelled by a rather obtuse assessment on the “Part 3” instructional test whereby the “goal” was tending to be focussed on the controlling elements required to manage a role-playing examiner, rather than the skills needed to provide value to a learner driver.  Providers have been given a free reign to train PDI’s to just pass the test, the consequence being that PDI’s are actively encouraged to train learners also just to pass the test too.  The assessment criteria for this Part 3 test is due to become aligned with the same assessment undertaken every 4 years or so to monitor driving instructors (known as “Standards Check”).  In effect the “what” is changing but there is still an open house on the “how”, the methodology by which PDI’s are trained to develop key skills to teach learners. 

When I think of training PDI’s I see no difference at all with how I train learner drivers.  My approach has always been to align the training to the individual needs as we all have differing backgrounds and starting points.  There isn’t the means in the assessment process to demonstrate differing approaches to learning that are specifically designed for a pupil.  The one off assessment is just not geared up to accommodate this point.  Ultimately, this is one of the key ingredients that affects successful outcomes.  A PDI will still be able to be trained to provide value for a pupil with ‘average’ capabilities and needs, but many pupils have definite learning needs.  Some pupils will respond to verbal instruction better than others, some will require explanations of key concepts in a particular way to be meaningful, some will have more experience of effective learning techniques than others and on it goes.  The willingness and ability of pupils to consider the responsibilities of safe driving and have some awareness of their strengths and weaknesses vary considerably.  The methods to be adopted in order to achieve long-lasting safe driving techniques and continued learning post-test, are numerous and not simple.   Pupils respond differently to varying methodology.  This is why one trainer suggested on Friday that to be on ORDIT a trainer must have a qualification in teaching.  And these unique needs are equally true for training of PDI’s.  Some PDI’s would vehemently dislike the thought of role-playing when training in-car for example and yet there will be trainers who have solely used this methodology forcing it upon PDI’s for years.  For some PDI’s the last time they experienced a formal learning environment might have been 30 years ago before the needs of everyday living; they may be totally unaware of modern learning techniques that will assist them and some of their future pupils. 

Most people will be able to recognise that the long term effectiveness of training is not a given.  Developing a PDI so that they can teach an “average” learner how to drive (Levels 1 & 2 of the GDE matrix) is really not difficult.  Setting up that PDI to deliver on their Part 3 assessment an effective driving lesson for said learner is really not difficult.  What the DVSA need to consider is how they can accurately distinguish between the true effectiveness of driving instructors when they assess them; it is not smart to think that the ability of a PDI to facilitate learning can be assessed by looking at how they interact with one pupil. This point is not lost on the DVSA, their own standards tell driving instructors how we are expected to differentiate between the needs of pupils.

If there was the ability of the DVSA to identify this higher class of trainer, then that would truly be something of value to a PDI because if a PDI is able to work in the industry with the ability to manage a range of client’s needs, then they become a valued commodity.  It is that kind of performance measure that differentiates the good from the average.  “Teaching” a pupil how to drive by way of “compliance led instruction” is ineffective and contributes nothing to standards of road safety – the DVSA would be doing the industry well to create an ORDIT that enables the public to see the results of higher standards in training.  

http://drivinginstructortraining.bigtom.org.uk/ 

Durham DVSA DIT Workshop 02/06/2017

Today I attended a workshop with the DVSA to discuss the new changes to the Part 3 assessment due in on 2/10/17 and also the future of ORDIT (the DVSA voluntary register of trainers who train PDI's to qualify as driving instructors).

The DVSA were represented by John Sheridan, Neil Wilson, John Caradine and Jacqui Turland.  Together they have extensive experience in matters of training policy, policy change and registrar duties.

There were well respected trainers present with a wealth of experience, collectively a good many years. 

The DVSA started by giving some info regarding the old and new Part 3 test comparisons.  John Sheridan made mention again of his "meaningful" point re the value provided to the pupil on the part 3.  These points which I have been made aware of on previous webinars/blogs/articles I have summarised in other blogs.  One point that came up was that a PDI will need to become familiar with the area in which they go to test because by taking a real pupil for their part 3 test, there is every possibility of them needing to change tact mid-lesson and select an appropriate location for something that has unexpectedly cropped up.  This is a significant change to the role-playing examiner on the current part 3 who decides where the test is going to be conducted.  There are currently around 400 test centres, most of them conduct Standards Checks but the new Part 3 will NOT be able to be conducted at all T/C's where S/C's are conducted due to lack of resources.  It was hinted at that the overall aim is to provide a dedicated resource of examiners solely for ADI work - so those examiners would be working full time on ADI related tests.  There would not be many of them, but they would be full time as opposed to the current situation where they do ADI related tests mixed in with other commitments. T/C's that currently conduct part 3's will probably remain for the new part 3 - but the hope is that the number of T/C's conducting part 3's will increase over time.

They reiterated once again about the "log book" and how they would expect a PDI to attend for the test with a log book which should detail the hours of training done, when, location, subject of training, how the subject relates to the driving standards, the performance of the PDI and what value was added by the trainer.  It was proposed that the naming of that kind of document would perhaps be better as "work book" as log book tends to imply a list of dates and durations only.
A sample revised assessment sheet was provided with small adjustments that assist the DVSA to start collecting data linking quality of PDI presented with specific trainer, whether on a trainee licence, whether a log book was shown to the examiner - all the sort of stuff that Mark Magee has been telling us all about for some time now.

Clarity was provided about the aim of feedback from examiners after a S/C to help the ADI reflect on how could be better with a bias towards developmental as opposed to the feedback after a part 3 which is not intended to be a training/developmental role, purely assessment. 

It was stated (again) that there are about 170 ORDIT training organisations and about 890 trainers.  Over these 2 events from the DVSA, 120 attended the first event in Cardington recently, and today we had roughly 30 present  - however it should be said that it is not clear out of all those who attended, how many were ORDIT registered.  A common theme today from those who ARE ORDIT registered was how de-valued they felt it was, to the point of not being worth getting registered.

The conversation steered momentarily on to the new driving test and confirmation that the sat nav used would be a Tom Tom mounted on a rubber "dash mat" (just under A5 size) with a round circle for it to be placed in.... not mounted on windscreen.  Just behind it will be a small battery pack to try to avoid the need to plug into the 12v adaptor. 

As the current 10 min indy drive section of the test is not a legal requirement, there is flexibility to change with relative ease for the DVSA.  So out will go the diagrams/3 sets of directed instructions for the indy drive however 1 in 5 tests will still incorporate "follow signs for....." instruction.  The point was made that should the speed limit displayed on the sat nav be incorrect and the candidate therefore speeds that will be a test fail - they need to independently assess speed limits on the move without over reliance on sat navs.

The bay park will be using public car parks (or if available a car park of a nearby t/c), the candidate chooses the bay but it must involve driving forward in, reversing back out and then driving away and this COULD be asked to be performed within the 20 min sat nav section (as could pulling over).  So the candidate has freedom to choose if they park next to already parked vehicles or not (assuming they HAVE a choice!).  Likewise confirmation of the pulling up on the right was also given.  It is not intended to amount to an angled start..... reverse back 2 car lengths and then move off.

The "show me" will be from a range of what is shaping up to be 7 options (open/close window, demister, windscreen wipers, lights on/off etc).  It was asked how would a d/f be marked up when caused as a result of a new show me question on the move eg currently this can only be marked up as a "minor" d/f.  It was confirmed that the examiners will continue to "mark the cause unless the effect is greater".

A little side note was made of the part 2 test and how it would be sensible to have that aligned to the new test, perhaps requesting a random 2 out of the possible manoeuvre options.  This may very well become aligned at the same time of introducing the new L test.

Regarding ORDIT, the point was made that <30% of PDI's coming into the qualification process are qualifying, in fact significant numbers do not even get past the initial paper sift - a point also made previously by Mark Magee.  The DVSA then opened up the talk for suggestions about how the "status" of ORDIT could be improved.  This brought about a load of attendee input, varied and wide, historical and looking into the future.  A personal opinion but I sensed a great deal of bitterness, resentment and frustration about how the ORDIT scheme has not lived up to what has been billed over the years.  There is a tension between market forces of customer expectation for training, DVSA standards, voluntary participation and public awareness.  More opinion was offered regarding the effective use of role-play within the training environment and the skills needed by trainers to perform the task of developing skillsets within PDI's aligned to the S/C assessment criteria - particularly assessing, identification and managing of risk.

It was hinted that ORDIT is about to significantly be improved - no precise details were forthcoming but it was implied that it will be imminent (next few months).

The last question related to autonomous vehicles which then evolved into developing in-car technology.

Please be advised the above is my version of the summary - it is not intended to be an authoritative verbatim account of the discussions over the 5 hours.

Here is my personal response to the issues relating to ORDIT

http://drivinginstructortraining.bigtom.org.uk/